MORTGAGE RIGHTS
The New Foreclosure Defenses Fraud on the Court  When the foreclosure crisis struck, homeowners and their attorneys quickly discovered that there were businesses that specialized in fabricating loan documents for banks. There are indications that the fabrication of documents continues even though loan servicers agreed to reform their practices in settlements with various government agencies and the state Attorney Generals. For example, Wells Fargo has faced these allegations recently. In 2013, a whistleblower claimed that Wells Fargo was fabricating loan documents on a large scale. According to the whistleblower, a team of approximately 100 temps (broken into two shifts) inspected files for loans that were going to go into foreclosure. The whistleblower estimated 99.5% of the loans that had been securitized failed the bank's test. Only 10 to 15% of the loans that had been made by Wells Fargo and were not securitized, on the other hand, failed the tests. The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Of particular interest to us, the temps allegedly inspected the notes to see if there was a complete and unbroken chain of endorsements. Notes that failed were sent to another section. The whistleblower claims that the notes would return weeks later with "corrections" in the form of new endorsements to the note or the addition of an allonge (an allonge is a piece of paper attached to a note to allow extra space for endorsements). The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Let's talk about the significance of these instructions. First, all of the endorsements were supposed to have been executed before the loan files were delivered to the trust. The Trustees were supposed to examine every loan file and make certain that every note was properly endorsed. These Trustees issued numerous certifications that they had examined the loan files and that all of the notes were properly endorsed. With the evidence we now have from the whistleblower and the Manual, it is evident that the trustee certifications were false. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. The documents that the Default Docs Team worked on were intended to be filed in court. The internet contains many, many posts from lawyers who demanded that the note be produced or challenged the lack of endorsements on the note only to have correct documents magically appear. This has happened so often that the foreclosure defense bar calls them "Ta-Da!" documents. If the whistleblower's allegations are true and if we are interpreting the Manual correctly, there is a very serious question whether Wells Fargo has committed fraud on the court by entering the "ta-da" documents in the court record.
NEXT: MERS
 MORTGAGE RIGHTS
The site does not provide legal advice. Neither Susan LaCava nor her law firm, LaCava Law, S.C., represent you until there is a signed retainer agreement.
The New Foreclosure Defenses Fraud on the Court  When the foreclosure crisis struck, homeowners and their attorneys quickly discovered that there were businesses that specialized in fabricating loan documents for banks. There are indications that the fabrication of documents continues even though loan servicers agreed to reform their practices in settlements with various government agencies and the state Attorney Generals. For example, Wells Fargo has faced these allegations recently. In 2013, a whistleblower claimed that Wells Fargo was fabricating loan documents on a large scale. According to the whistleblower, a team of approximately 100 temps (broken into two shifts) inspected files for loans that were going to go into foreclosure. The whistleblower estimated 99.5% of the loans that had been securitized failed the bank's test. Only 10 to 15% of the loans that had been made by Wells Fargo and were not securitized, on the other hand, failed the tests. The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Of particular interest to us, the temps allegedly inspected the notes to see if there was a complete and unbroken chain of endorsements. Notes that failed were sent to another section. The whistleblower claims that the notes would return weeks later with "corrections" in the form of new endorsements to the note or the addition of an allonge (an allonge is a piece of paper attached to a note to allow extra space for endorsements). The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Let's talk about the significance of these instructions. First, all of the endorsements were supposed to have been executed before the loan files were delivered to the trust. The Trustees were supposed to examine every loan file and make certain that every note was properly endorsed. These Trustees issued numerous certifications that they had examined the loan files and that all of the notes were properly endorsed. With the evidence we now have from the whistleblower and the Manual, it is evident that the trustee certifications were false. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. The documents that the Default Docs Team worked on were intended to be filed in court. The internet contains many, many posts from lawyers who demanded that the note be produced or challenged the lack of endorsements on the note only to have correct documents magically appear. This has happened so often that the foreclosure defense bar calls them "Ta-Da!" documents. If the whistleblower's allegations are true and if we are interpreting the Manual correctly, there is a very serious question whether Wells Fargo has committed fraud on the court by entering the "ta-da" documents in the court record.
 MORTGAGE RIGHTS
 MORTGAGE RIGHTS
The site does not provide legal advice. Neither Susan LaCava nor her law firm, LaCava Law, S.C., represent you until there is a signed retainer agreement.
The New Foreclosure Defenses Fraud on the Court  When the foreclosure crisis struck, homeowners and their attorneys quickly discovered that there were businesses that specialized in fabricating loan documents for banks. There are indications that the fabrication of documents continues even though loan servicers agreed to reform their practices in settlements with various government agencies and the state Attorney Generals. For example, Wells Fargo has faced these allegations recently. In 2013, a whistleblower claimed that Wells Fargo was fabricating loan documents on a large scale. According to the whistleblower, a team of approximately 100 temps (broken into two shifts) inspected files for loans that were going to go into foreclosure. The whistleblower estimated 99.5% of the loans that had been securitized failed the bank's test. Only 10 to 15% of the loans that had been made by Wells Fargo and were not securitized, on the other hand, failed the tests. The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Of particular interest to us, the temps allegedly inspected the notes to see if there was a complete and unbroken chain of endorsements. Notes that failed were sent to another section. The whistleblower claims that the notes would return weeks later with "corrections" in the form of new endorsements to the note or the addition of an allonge (an allonge is a piece of paper attached to a note to allow extra space for endorsements). The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Let's talk about the significance of these instructions. First, all of the endorsements were supposed to have been executed before the loan files were delivered to the trust. The Trustees were supposed to examine every loan file and make certain that every note was properly endorsed. These Trustees issued numerous certifications that they had examined the loan files and that all of the notes were properly endorsed. With the evidence we now have from the whistleblower and the Manual, it is evident that the trustee certifications were false. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. The documents that the Default Docs Team worked on were intended to be filed in court. The internet contains many, many posts from lawyers who demanded that the note be produced or challenged the lack of endorsements on the note only to have correct documents magically appear. This has happened so often that the foreclosure defense bar calls them "Ta-Da!" documents. If the whistleblower's allegations are true and if we are interpreting the Manual correctly, there is a very serious question whether Wells Fargo has committed fraud on the court by entering the "ta-da" documents in the court record.
 MORTGAGE RIGHTS
 MORTGAGE RIGHTS
The site does not provide legal advice. Neither Susan LaCava nor her law firm, LaCava Law, S.C., represent you until there is a signed retainer agreement.
The New Foreclosure Defenses Fraud on the Court  When the foreclosure crisis struck, homeowners and their attorneys quickly discovered that there were businesses that specialized in fabricating loan documents for banks. There are indications that the fabrication of documents continues even though loan servicers agreed to reform their practices in settlements with various government agencies and the state Attorney Generals. For example, Wells Fargo has faced these allegations recently. In 2013, a whistleblower claimed that Wells Fargo was fabricating loan documents on a large scale. According to the whistleblower, a team of approximately 100 temps (broken into two shifts) inspected files for loans that were going to go into foreclosure. The whistleblower estimated 99.5% of the loans that had been securitized failed the bank's test. Only 10 to 15% of the loans that had been made by Wells Fargo and were not securitized, on the other hand, failed the tests. The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Of particular interest to us, the temps allegedly inspected the notes to see if there was a complete and unbroken chain of endorsements. Notes that failed were sent to another section. The whistleblower claims that the notes would return weeks later with "corrections" in the form of new endorsements to the note or the addition of an allonge (an allonge is a piece of paper attached to a note to allow extra space for endorsements). The existence of a Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual for Attorneys was revealed in March of 2014. Copies of the manual can be found on Scribd. The Manual explains what happened after the document review team sent notes to another department for "correction." For example, if an endorsement to the note was missing, the Default Docs Team was instructed to "research needed endorsement [and] execute the endorsement." If an allonge was needed, the Default Docs Team was to determine if Wells Fargo had authority to sign the allonge. If Wells Fargo did not have authority, the Team was supposed to send the allonge to the party that had authority so that it could sign it. Let's talk about the significance of these instructions. First, all of the endorsements were supposed to have been executed before the loan files were delivered to the trust. The Trustees were supposed to examine every loan file and make certain that every note was properly endorsed. These Trustees issued numerous certifications that they had examined the loan files and that all of the notes were properly endorsed. With the evidence we now have from the whistleblower and the Manual, it is evident that the trustee certifications were false. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. Second, sending an allonge to a third party for endorsement is often not possible. A lot of the companies that made sub-prime loans and securitized sub-prime loans have gone out of business. They cannot endorse anything. Negotiable instruments law gives Wells Fargo the right to demand that the party that conveyed the note to it endorse the note, but the note has not been "negotiated" to Wells Fargo until it is endorsed. In a nutshell, Wells Fargo does not acquire certain important legal rights unless the third party endorses the note but, a lot of the third parties no longer exist. The documents that the Default Docs Team worked on were intended to be filed in court. The internet contains many, many posts from lawyers who demanded that the note be produced or challenged the lack of endorsements on the note only to have correct documents magically appear. This has happened so often that the foreclosure defense bar calls them "Ta-Da!" documents. If the whistleblower's allegations are true and if we are interpreting the Manual correctly, there is a very serious question whether Wells Fargo has committed fraud on the court by entering the "ta-da" documents in the court record.
 MORTGAGE RIGHTS
The site does not provide legal advice. Neither Susan LaCava nor her law firm, LaCava Law, S.C., represent you until there is a signed retainer agreement.  MORTGAGE RIGHTS